Rear extension to dwelling, new front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 February 2026 by Scott Wilson LL.B. MSc MRTPI Decision by David M H Rose BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000697 5 Roscrow Drive, Camborne, Cornwall TR14 0EF • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs O'Donnell against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA25/01176. • The development proposed is a rear extension to dwelling, new front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. Whilst the whole development is before me, I will confine my consideration to the element of the scheme that is in dispute, namely the rear two-storey extension. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Number 26 Roscrow Drive (No. 26). Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 5. The appeal building comprises an end‑of‑terrace, two‑storey dwelling situated within a recently constructed residential estate. The adjacent property, No. 26, is arranged on a markedly different orientation of approximately ninety degrees, such that the rear boundary of that property abuts the side boundary of the appeal site. The wider estate is characterised by a cohesive design approach, reflected in the consistent use of materials, architectural detailing, and overall built form. Roofscapes predominantly feature simple pitched, hipped and half‑hipped configurations. While the majority of dwellings are of two‑storey height, the estate also includes a prominent three‑storey building which serves as a local landmark. Appeal Decision 6000697 2 6. The layout of the estate is such there are two groups of dwellings, north and south, separated by an access road. The appeal building is located within the southern group that is arranged in a broadly heart‑shaped configuration and focused around a central communal parking area. Consequently, the rear elevations of most properties within this grouping face towards this shared space, and, to a lesser degree, towards one another. This arrangement results in a high degree of mutual overlooking of rear elevations from within the group, which contributes to a sense of natural surveillance. In turn, this forms a positive element of the character and appearance of the cluster of dwellings and increases the significance of the rear elevations. Taken together with the coherent design, the rear elevations make a strong contribution to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The proposed two-storey, flat roofed, full width extension would jar against the pleasant consistency of the rear elevations which make such a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. The roof form would be discordant with the prevailing character and the additional mass from the two-storey full width would be significant, uncharacteristic, and dominate the host dwelling. 8. I acknowledge that the appellant has pro-actively interacted with the Council in the formation of the application which is to be commended. However, the evidence is that the Council clearly indicated that the current scheme would be unacceptable before determination and offered advice indicating what would be acceptable. 9. I acknowledge that the proposal would use matching materials; however, this would not overcome the harm identified. I also note that the roof form was chosen to limit any perceived harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and to signal subservience. However, the roof form is an alien design in a high quality environment and would not complement the existing building nor the character and appearance of the group. Given the importance of the rear elevations to the grouping and its specific design with intended natural surveillance, I do not accept that the limited public visibility of the rear elevations of the grouping offers sufficient mitigation to overcome the harm identified. 10. I have been directed to multiple properties in the wider area where flat roof extensions are frequent. However, those buildings in those locations are not part of the well designed and consistent character grouping and I therefore distinguish them from the subject appeal. 11. I note the appellant’s assessment of what might be constructed as permitted development. However, the proposal would be significantly taller and bulkier and have the drawbacks of a flat roof. Accordingly, I do not consider that there is any real prospect of a fallback scheme being implemented and I afford this matter little weight. 12. Consequently, the proposed two storey rear extension would be a dominant, bulky, and uncharacteristic addition that would adversely affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 13. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (the Local Plan) policies 2 and 12; and policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023, insofar as they seek high quality, well designed, sustainable development that respects the locally distinctive character of the area. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) paragraphs 8, 131 and 135, Appeal Decision 6000697 3 insofar as they seek high quality, sustainable development that respects the distinctiveness of the local character. Living Conditions 14. The proposed two-storey rear extension would introduce significant mass and bulk to the rear of the appeal property and along the shared boundary with No. 26. Given the depth and height of the extension along with the orientation and proximity of the adjacent neighbour, No. 26, it would adversely affect the living conditions of occupiers of No. 26 regarding overbearing and sense of enclosure. In addition, given the orientation of No. 26 to the North of the appeal site, the proximity and height of the proposal on the shared boundary and the limited depth of the rear garden, the proposed two-storey extension would result in unacceptable overshadowing of the rear garden area and lounge room of No. 26, despite the use of a flat roof. 15. I acknowledge that the occupants of No. 26 have offered their support of the proposal and that the appellants have offered to paint the flank wall an agreeable colour. Notwithstanding these factors, property is a transient object and what one occupier may consider acceptable could be considered unacceptable by another. Regardless, planning permission goes with the land and whilst I afford this support some weight it would not outweigh the harms I have found above. 16. Consequently, the proposed two-storey rear extension would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No. 26 in regard of overbearing, enclosure, and overshadowing. 17. Accordingly, the proposed two-storey rear extension would conflict with the Local Plan policy 12 in so far as it seeks to protect individuals and property from overshadowing and overbearing impacts. Similarly, the proposal would conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework insofar as it seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Personal circumstances 18. Evidence has been submitted in support of the appeal which confirms that a family member at the appeal property has a health issue. That evidence sets out that the proposed rear extension would enable the family to safely support the medical needs of the family member. Therefore, I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in s149 of the Equalities Act 2010. The duty includes having regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, and advance equality of opportunity between those sharing relevant protected characteristics and those who do not. Disability is a relevant protected characteristic to which the PSED applies. 19. These rights are engaged in reaching my recommendation and I have kept these interests at the forefront of my mind. However, they are qualified rights, and interference may be justified in the public interest. The concept of proportionality is key. I recognise that the use of a dedicated bedroom may facilitate easier care of persons with protected characteristics. However, I have not been directed to any specific aid in care that a dedicated room could facilitate, and it has not been demonstrated that the appeal proposal is the only means which would provide assistance for the family member. I am also mindful that personal circumstances Appeal Decision 6000697 4 and ownership of the land can change, but the effect of the development would be permanent. 20. Thus, based on the evidence before me, the PSED considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Following careful consideration of these matters I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing this appeal is proportionate and justified. Other Matters 21. I acknowledge that the proposal would create more space and consequently benefit family living arrangements. However, this is a personal benefit that would not outweigh the harm identified. 22. I note the lack of objections from the community, including the Town Council. Despite the appellant maintaining that the Town Council support the application the evidence is that it did not object. A lack of objection does not indicate support for the proposal. Even if it did, I have found conflict with the development plan which would not be outweighed by such support. 23. Whilst some elements of the proposal may align with some supporting information contained within the Local Plan, including accessible and affordable accommodation, and reducing carbon, amongst other things, compliance with some supporting information does not outweigh the harmful conflict with policy I have identified in this instance. 24. The appellant maintains the proposal would accord with policies 6, 8 and 21 of the Local Plan. However, I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate how the proposal accords with these policies. Even if it did, this would be a lack of harm and would not outweigh the harms I have identified above. 25. The price of comparable housing in the locality is not a planning consideration in the determination of this appeal. 26. I acknowledge that the appellant is willing to accept a standard drainage condition. However, this would not mitigate the harms identified. Conclusion and Recommendation 27. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Scott Wilson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 28. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. David MH Rose INSPECTOR